#1Dec 21st, 2011
We do not need a Big Brother to take care of us.
Ron Paul on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno
--
2404 others browsing the Canadian Forums! Join us!Ron Paul
No Party Affiliation
We do not need a Big Brother to take care of us.
Ron Paul on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno
--
+2
#7Re: Ron Paul
Dec 21st, 2011
Wow. They do realise he intends to reduce military spending big time and adopt a more militarily and politically isolationist policy, pull out of the UN, and essentially just trade freely with the world, no?
In fact he was originally extremely pro-immigration (as in, open the floodgates) and only backed away from it politically, not philosophically. I remember him saying he does not suport such open immigration not on libertarian principle but merely because the voters don't want it. At least he was honest about it.
Now don't get me wrong: though I disagree with many of his ideas, I still like many of his ideas more than I do those of many other candidates including Obama perhaps. I'm just saying though that I'm surprised so many US citizens would support someone who is so obviously non-militaristic in a nation where to propose such ideas would usually mean electoral suicide.
In fact he was originally extremely pro-immigration (as in, open the floodgates) and only backed away from it politically, not philosophically. I remember him saying he does not suport such open immigration not on libertarian principle but merely because the voters don't want it. At least he was honest about it.
Now don't get me wrong: though I disagree with many of his ideas, I still like many of his ideas more than I do those of many other candidates including Obama perhaps. I'm just saying though that I'm surprised so many US citizens would support someone who is so obviously non-militaristic in a nation where to propose such ideas would usually mean electoral suicide.
No Party Affiliation
+2
#8Re: Ron Paul
Dec 21st, 2011
The guy has been around over 30+ years, maybe his time has come. Some of his ideas may sound off the wall, but once you think about them for a while they are pretty sound. As for his reducing the military, that is not a bad idea providing you keep military technology as a top priority. We can do a lot more today with less on the ground than we used to. (It still will require some on the ground though)
Conservative
#9
Re: Ron Paul
Dec 21st, 2011Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides
The guy has been around over 30+ years, maybe his time has come. Some of his ideas may sound off the wall, but once you think about them for a while they are pretty sound. As for his reducing the military, that is not a bad idea providing you keep military technology as a top priority. We can do a lot more today with less on the ground than we used to. (It still will require some on the ground though)
Darn............wish I would have seen the interview........would like to have heard Ron one on one.
#10
Re: Ron Paul
Dec 21st, 2011Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides
The guy has been around over 30+ years, maybe his time has come. Some of his ideas may sound off the wall, but once you think about them for a while they are pretty sound. As for his reducing the military, that is not a bad idea providing you keep military technology as a top priority. We can do a lot more today with less on the ground than we used to. (It still will require some on the ground though)
Some of his ideas are sound, and even those ideas of his I do disagree with I can quite tolerate. Also, even if he were president, there would be Congress keeping him in check anyway so I guess he would be a breath of fresh air as president.
And what about ron Paul's comments about US foreign policy being to blame at least in part for 9/11? he may be a Republican party member himself, but i can't imagine most of his copartisans would agree with him on that one.
I hope he wins, but these are the types of obstacles he'll have to overcome to do so. i hope he does.
I'm impressed:
--
With some of the views he holds (especially his views on US foreign policy being at least partially responsible for 9/11), I'm actually quite surprised that Republicans are rallying around him in such numbers.
Clearly something's changing in the US.
+1
#12Re: Ron Paul
Dec 21st, 2011Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss
Ron Paul comes across as more pacific than even Obama. imagine that, a Democrat coming across as more hawkish than a Republican!I hope he wins.
Obama needs some competition.
Free Thinker
+3
#13 Top Rated PostRe: Ron Paul
Dec 21st, 2011
The other day, I was looking for a firm apple at the bottom of the barrel, and, wow, there were possible Republican candidates discussing policy down there.
PS
Didn't find a good apple...
PS
Didn't find a good apple...
No Party Affiliation
#14
Re: Ron Paul
Dec 21st, 2011Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
And he could definitely use Obama's bloated military spending as a talking point. Ron Paul comes across as more pacific than even Obama. imagine that, a Democrat coming across as more hawkish than a Republican!
No Party Affiliation
+2
#16Re: Ron Paul
Dec 21st, 2011Quote: Originally Posted by Spade
I agree, but he's still going to take the next election unless Republicans stop devouring cyanide pills.Obama is more than a little bit of a disappointment...
No Party Affiliation
#17
Re: Ron Paul
Dec 21st, 2011Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
Ron Paul may have had suffered a episode of "foot in mouth" disease. But so far it has not become a major issue for him, not that it won't somewhere between now and election day.Ron Paul comes across as more pacific than even Obama. imagine that, a Democrat coming across as more hawkish than a Republican!
“Just remember, immediately after 9/11 we removed the base from Saudi Arabia. So there is a connection. That doesn’t do the whole full explanation, but our policies definitely had an influence,” the Texas congressman said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Ron Paul is more of a pacifist than President Obama, and that is what concerns me. President Obama is not by any stretch of the imagination a pacifist.
Conservative
+1
#18Re: Ron Paul
Dec 21st, 2011
Ron Paul MIGHT win Iowa. BUT, the winner in Iowa has NOT taken the Republican nomination in many. many years. He has a ZERO chance of winning the Republican nomination.
I can't believe that some of you actually take him seriously. he polls around 3% in ALL national polls.
I can't believe that some of you actually take him seriously. he polls around 3% in ALL national polls.
Free Thinker
#19
Re: Ron Paul
Dec 21st, 2011
I've been talking to a lot of RP supporters on youtube lately and the reoccurring theme I see among them is that:
- 9/11 was an "inside job".
- RP is actually leading the polls, but the media is "lying" because of its "secret agenda against him".
- no other Republican candidate will make a reasonable President because they are all "puppets" being "secretly controlled" by conspirators. It's RP or nothing.
- "connect the dots now" ... there's worldwide conspiracy to bring in a one world government.
And of course -- doesn't phase them. "It wasn't the real Ron Paul!"
Right.
I can agree with RP on a few things, but the bulk of his supporters seem to be very young, have know-it-all attitudes, and see conspiracies all around them.
- 9/11 was an "inside job".
- RP is actually leading the polls, but the media is "lying" because of its "secret agenda against him".
- no other Republican candidate will make a reasonable President because they are all "puppets" being "secretly controlled" by conspirators. It's RP or nothing.
- "connect the dots now" ... there's worldwide conspiracy to bring in a one world government.
And of course -- doesn't phase them. "It wasn't the real Ron Paul!"
Right.
I can agree with RP on a few things, but the bulk of his supporters seem to be very young, have know-it-all attitudes, and see conspiracies all around them.
Conservative
#21
Re: Ron Paul
Dec 21st, 2011
Why should we take him any less seriously than we do anyone else who has opinions that interest us? Whether he is polling high nationally or not means nothing to me. I like what he has to say about small government and more power placed in state hands - lots less red tape on that last move. I also like his position on the US backing off from involvement in foreign conflicts. If he ever decided to take on Monsanto, the Agriculture lobby and mountain top coal extraction, I would have to think about moving to the US so I could vote for him.
I happened to catch a couple of excerpts from an interview he did with a CNN reporter today. I almost wanted to applaud him out loud.
Why is it that some reporters believe that the same question can possibly elicit any answer other than the first one they received, simply by changing a couple of words?? This has puzzled me for a long time but I digress, Ron Paul was not about to put up with any of that and came right back at her with a few choice words, obviously hitting his mark as they set that reporter back on her heels for a bit. He then proceeded to take off his mike and leave the room and the reporter scurrying in his wake to finish the interview. Right on, Ron Paul.
I happened to catch a couple of excerpts from an interview he did with a CNN reporter today. I almost wanted to applaud him out loud.
Why is it that some reporters believe that the same question can possibly elicit any answer other than the first one they received, simply by changing a couple of words?? This has puzzled me for a long time but I digress, Ron Paul was not about to put up with any of that and came right back at her with a few choice words, obviously hitting his mark as they set that reporter back on her heels for a bit. He then proceeded to take off his mike and leave the room and the reporter scurrying in his wake to finish the interview. Right on, Ron Paul.
No Party Affiliation
#22
Re: Ron Paul
Dec 21st, 2011Quote:
imagine that, a Democrat coming across as more hawkish than a Republican!
Oh the irony!
No Party Affiliation
+1
#23Re: Ron Paul
Dec 22nd, 2011Quote: Originally Posted by In Between Man
LOL, maybe or just the yahoo's that hand around on YouTube.I've been talking to a lot of RP supporters on youtube lately and the reoccurring theme I see among them is that:
- 9/11 was an "inside job".
- RP is actually leading the polls, but the media is "lying" because of its "secret agenda against him".
- no other Republican candidate will make a reasonable President because they are all "puppets" being "secretly controlled" by conspirators. It's RP or nothing.
- "connect the dots now" ... there's worldwide conspiracy to bring in a one world government.
And of course -- doesn't phase them. "It wasn't the real Ron Paul!"
Right.
I can agree with RP on a few things, but the bulk of his supporters seem to be very young, have know-it-all attitudes, and see conspiracies all around them.
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich
I really don't follow U.S. politics all that much. However, I'm finding he does tend to come off as a not your typical, seen it all before, let's listen to him tell us the same old same old rhetoric kind of politician. And if nothing else, that is at least refreshing.Why should we take him any less seriously than we do anyone else who has opinions that interest us? Whether he is polling high nationally or not means nothing to me. I like what he has to say about small government and more power placed in state hands - lots less red tape on that last move. I also like his position on the US backing off from involvement in foreign conflicts. If he ever decided to take on Monsanto, the Agriculture lobby and mountain top coal extraction, I would have to think about moving to the US so I could vote for him.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
I happened to catch a couple of excerpts from an interview he did with a CNN reporter today. I almost wanted to applaud him out loud.
Why is it that some reporters believe that the same question can possibly elicit any answer other than the first one they received, simply by changing a couple of words?? This has puzzled me for a long time but I digress, Ron Paul was not about to put up with any of that and came right back at her with a few choice words, obviously hitting his mark as they set that reporter back on her heels for a bit. He then proceeded to take off his mike and leave the room and the reporter scurrying in his wake to finish the interview. Right on, Ron Paul.
+1
#24Re: Ron Paul
Dec 22nd, 2011
Anyone calling for LESS govt is somebody who knows what they are doing.
No Party Affiliation
+1
#25Re: Ron Paul
Dec 22nd, 2011
Ron Paul has been accused of being Racist - this writer reveals the truth
by Stephen Wood
(libertarian)
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Look at these two photos and decide whether you believe there is an eery similarity between Thomas Jefferson and Don Imus the radio personality who made racist statements against the Rutgers women's basketball team last year. I find the similarities staggering.
Some in the media would argue that this proves that Thomas Jefferson was a racist.
The measure of a man is not in his facial features, it is in the color of his character. Some in the media have taken a new approach to try and stop Ron Paul and his supporters. They have taken to ignoring the man and his message, which by the way is backed by a 20+ year public record of voting consistently to honor civil rights of all individuals, regardless of ethnic origin, religious heritage or sexual orientation.
When it looked like a good tactic, these same media personalities kept asking Dr. Paul why he was running in the Republican Party when he was clearly a Libertarian. If they knew anything at all about the Libertarian outlook on life, they would realize that Libertarians look at all people equally under the Constitution.
So by definition, he couldn't be racist. Now on the other hand, it was at the least, poor judgement on Ron Paul's part 20 years ago to allow a newsletter, bearing his name to be published without controlling it's content.
Did he know what was being said in the paper? We'll never know! Since this is being brought up during a presidential race, it is fair to bring up what everyone else was saying, lending their name too and doing 20 years ago.
Has anyone made a big deal about Barak Obamas frequent experiences with illegal drug use 20 years ago? Has anyone found out how the 1000+ convicted felons that Huckabee pardoned are doing in society? Has anyone interviewed the Fire Departments and Police Departments in New York to see why they hate Rudy so much?
Has anyone been showing the video footage of Mitt Romney just 8 years ago, trying to prove he is not a Republican when debating Ted Kennedy?
If Ron Paul has no chance of winning, why attack him at all? I don't know what his chances of winning are, given the current media bias against him, but I do know that they are attacking him and I believe I know why.
He is like the father who is lecturing his kids on integrity, honor, abstinence and self-control as his sons are secretly planning to steal some liquor, go get some girls drunk to take advantage of them and they don't like hearing this because they don't want to feel guilty about what they WANT to do.
It is a proven fact that all of the candidates running for the office of the President of the United States, have a history of great accomplishments, mis-steps and bad decisions. The question you need to ask is which one of them has shown the wisdom, the discipline and courage to do the one thing that cannot be an option for our next President, to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic?
Only one candidate has made this the benchmark of his political career.
--
by Stephen Wood
(libertarian)
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Look at these two photos and decide whether you believe there is an eery similarity between Thomas Jefferson and Don Imus the radio personality who made racist statements against the Rutgers women's basketball team last year. I find the similarities staggering.
Some in the media would argue that this proves that Thomas Jefferson was a racist.
The measure of a man is not in his facial features, it is in the color of his character. Some in the media have taken a new approach to try and stop Ron Paul and his supporters. They have taken to ignoring the man and his message, which by the way is backed by a 20+ year public record of voting consistently to honor civil rights of all individuals, regardless of ethnic origin, religious heritage or sexual orientation.
When it looked like a good tactic, these same media personalities kept asking Dr. Paul why he was running in the Republican Party when he was clearly a Libertarian. If they knew anything at all about the Libertarian outlook on life, they would realize that Libertarians look at all people equally under the Constitution.
So by definition, he couldn't be racist. Now on the other hand, it was at the least, poor judgement on Ron Paul's part 20 years ago to allow a newsletter, bearing his name to be published without controlling it's content.
Did he know what was being said in the paper? We'll never know! Since this is being brought up during a presidential race, it is fair to bring up what everyone else was saying, lending their name too and doing 20 years ago.
Has anyone made a big deal about Barak Obamas frequent experiences with illegal drug use 20 years ago? Has anyone found out how the 1000+ convicted felons that Huckabee pardoned are doing in society? Has anyone interviewed the Fire Departments and Police Departments in New York to see why they hate Rudy so much?
Has anyone been showing the video footage of Mitt Romney just 8 years ago, trying to prove he is not a Republican when debating Ted Kennedy?
If Ron Paul has no chance of winning, why attack him at all? I don't know what his chances of winning are, given the current media bias against him, but I do know that they are attacking him and I believe I know why.
He is like the father who is lecturing his kids on integrity, honor, abstinence and self-control as his sons are secretly planning to steal some liquor, go get some girls drunk to take advantage of them and they don't like hearing this because they don't want to feel guilty about what they WANT to do.
It is a proven fact that all of the candidates running for the office of the President of the United States, have a history of great accomplishments, mis-steps and bad decisions. The question you need to ask is which one of them has shown the wisdom, the discipline and courage to do the one thing that cannot be an option for our next President, to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic?
Only one candidate has made this the benchmark of his political career.
--
No Party Affiliation
+1
#26Re: Ron Paul
Dec 23rd, 2011
I saw that interview and was amazed that a man with Paul's years of experience and seeming intelligence came across as so completely naive. On a few issues he came across quite intelligently, but as soon as he started talking social issues it was clear that he was completely out of his depth. The America of Ron Paul would probably turn out to be a very cold, hard place.
#27
Re: Ron Paul
Dec 24th, 2011Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides
Ron Paul may have had suffered a episode of "foot in mouth" disease. But so far it has not become a major issue for him, not that it won't somewhere between now and election day.
“Just remember, immediately after 9/11 we removed the base from Saudi Arabia. So there is a connection. That doesn’t do the whole full explanation, but our policies definitely had an influence,” the Texas congressman said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Ron Paul is more of a pacifist than President Obama, and that is what concerns me. President Obama is not by any stretch of the imagination a pacifist.
Correction: Ron Paul is not a pacifist. In fact, there are a few videos of him discussing his idea of a just war. That is why I used the word "pacific" earlier rather than "pacifist". "Pacifist" generally means total opposition to war no matter what along with a belief in abolishing the military. Ron Paul does not go that far.
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between Man
Don't blaime RP for the actions and words of his supporters.I've been talking to a lot of RP supporters on youtube lately and the reoccurring theme I see among them is that:
- 9/11 was an "inside job".
- RP is actually leading the polls, but the media is "lying" because of its "secret agenda against him".
- no other Republican candidate will make a reasonable President because they are all "puppets" being "secretly controlled" by conspirators. It's RP or nothing.
- "connect the dots now" ... there's worldwide conspiracy to bring in a one world government.
And of course -- doesn't phase them. "It wasn't the real Ron Paul!"
Right.
I can agree with RP on a few things, but the bulk of his supporters seem to be very young, have know-it-all attitudes, and see conspiracies all around them.
And as for the recist letter, I don't know the truth behind it, but either way seeing how open he is to free trade and, at least in principle, to more open immigration, it obviously has not affected his policy positions.
Quote: Originally Posted by petros
up to a certain point.Anyone calling for LESS govt is somebody who knows what they are doing.
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister
Of course I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything. But if you compare him to any other current candidate, he still outshines them all, sadly enough. And on the bright side, even if he did win the presidency, there would still be the House and Senate to keep him in check. looking at it that way, he'd simply provide a healthy counterbalance to the others.I saw that interview and was amazed that a man with Paul's years of experience and seeming intelligence came across as so completely naive. On a few issues he came across quite intelligently, but as soon as he started talking social issues it was clear that he was completely out of his depth. The America of Ron Paul would probably turn out to be a very cold, hard place.
No Party Affiliation
+1
#28Re: Ron Paul
Dec 24th, 2011Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo
For the most part, it doesn't really matter who win's the Presidency, as you mentioned it is the House and Senate that ultimately control the country and the President. Life will just plod along, Correction: Ron Paul is not a pacifist. In fact, there are a few videos of him discussing his idea of a just war. That is why I used the word "pacific" earlier rather than "pacifist". "Pacifist" generally means total opposition to war no matter what along with a belief in abolishing the military. Ron Paul does not go that far.
[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]
Don't blaime RP for the actions and words of his supporters.
And as for the recist letter, I don't know the truth behind it, but either way seeing how open he is to free trade and, at least in principle, to more open immigration, it obviously has not affected his policy positions.
up to a certain point.
Of course I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything. But if you compare him to any other current candidate, he still outshines them all, sadly enough. And on the bright side, even if he did win the presidency, there would still be the House and Senate to keep him in check. looking at it that way, he'd simply provide a healthy counterbalance to the others.
Free Thinker
#29
Re: Ron Paul
Dec 24th, 2011
More info. It seems he also made a ton of money as well.
Guess he had that good old racism buried in the woodpile.
Storm builds over Ron Paul newsletters
WASHINGTON . Ron Paul, the fringe Republican candidate who is hoping to pull off an upset victory in Iowa, was engulfed in a political storm Friday after the emergence of newsletters in which Martin Luther King was described as a pedophile, most black men were said to be criminals, and there was speculation Israel was behind a terrorist attack on the United States.
The wild claims were made in a series of newsletters the Texas congressman began producing in the late 1980s, where he offered paid subscribers advice on how to survive "the coming race war" and protect themselves from tax collectors armed with machine guns.
Asked about the newsletters on CNN this week, Mr. Paul, 76, refused to respond to the questions and stormed out of the studio.
In later explanations, the Texas representative said he did not write the letters himself, did not read them and "disavowed" their message, but was under growing pressure to explain how he could be unaware of dozens of inflammatory messages that were produced over more than a decade.
On Friday, Newt Gingrich, a rival in the Republican race, said, "I think that Congressman Paul has to explain his own situation and how he could have had a decade of newsletters that had his name on it that he apparently wasn't aware of.
"I think that somebody should say to him 'OK, how much money did you make from the newsletters?' These things are really nasty, and he didn't know about it? Wasn't aware of it? But he's sufficiently ready to be president? It strikes me it raises some fundamental questions about him."
In one undated letter with Mr. Paul's signature, he writes, "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities."
Another from December 1990 describes how Rev. King "was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys," while one written after the 1992 Los Angeles riots said order was only restored "when it came time for blacks to pick up their welfare cheques."
In 1992, another newsletter commented, "Given the inefficiencies of what [Washington] DC laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
A 1993 letter speculates then president Bill Clinton may have fathered illegitimate children with a black woman and refers to them as "woods colts." After a car bomb exploded in the basement of the World Trade Center in 1993, one letter suggests the attack may have been "a set-up by the Israeli Mossad".
The reports were promoted as a guide for Americans to protect their families and their property from apocalyptic visions of social breakdown and a tyrannical federal government. They were not paid for out of public funds but were often signed "Congressman Ron Paul."
Mr. Paul has not denied he made money from the publications and at least one signed letter ends with a request for the reader to send a cheque or money order over the phone by calling 1-800-RON-PAUL.
In an interview with CNN's Gloria Borger Wednesday, Mr. Paul said of the newsletter's articles, "I didn't write them. I didn't read them at the time and I disavow them."
When Ms. Borger continued to pursue the subject, Mr. Paul removed his microphone and walked out of the interview.
Drew Ivers, his Iowa campaign chairman, said, "It is ridiculous to imply that Ron Paul is a bigot, racist, or unethical." However, he added Mr. Paul does not deny or retract material he has written under his own signature, such as the letter promoting the newsletters.
When asked whether that meant Mr. Paul believed there was a government conspiracy to cover up the impact of AIDS, Mr. Ivers said, "I don't think he embraces that."
The newsletters first surfaced during Mr. Paul's unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid, but have come under fresh scrutiny as the libertarian has overtaken rivals Mr. Gingrich and Mitt Romney in the polls in the crucial early voting state of Iowa.
Guess he had that good old racism buried in the woodpile.
Storm builds over Ron Paul newsletters
WASHINGTON . Ron Paul, the fringe Republican candidate who is hoping to pull off an upset victory in Iowa, was engulfed in a political storm Friday after the emergence of newsletters in which Martin Luther King was described as a pedophile, most black men were said to be criminals, and there was speculation Israel was behind a terrorist attack on the United States.
The wild claims were made in a series of newsletters the Texas congressman began producing in the late 1980s, where he offered paid subscribers advice on how to survive "the coming race war" and protect themselves from tax collectors armed with machine guns.
Asked about the newsletters on CNN this week, Mr. Paul, 76, refused to respond to the questions and stormed out of the studio.
In later explanations, the Texas representative said he did not write the letters himself, did not read them and "disavowed" their message, but was under growing pressure to explain how he could be unaware of dozens of inflammatory messages that were produced over more than a decade.
On Friday, Newt Gingrich, a rival in the Republican race, said, "I think that Congressman Paul has to explain his own situation and how he could have had a decade of newsletters that had his name on it that he apparently wasn't aware of.
"I think that somebody should say to him 'OK, how much money did you make from the newsletters?' These things are really nasty, and he didn't know about it? Wasn't aware of it? But he's sufficiently ready to be president? It strikes me it raises some fundamental questions about him."
In one undated letter with Mr. Paul's signature, he writes, "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities."
Another from December 1990 describes how Rev. King "was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys," while one written after the 1992 Los Angeles riots said order was only restored "when it came time for blacks to pick up their welfare cheques."
In 1992, another newsletter commented, "Given the inefficiencies of what [Washington] DC laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
A 1993 letter speculates then president Bill Clinton may have fathered illegitimate children with a black woman and refers to them as "woods colts." After a car bomb exploded in the basement of the World Trade Center in 1993, one letter suggests the attack may have been "a set-up by the Israeli Mossad".
The reports were promoted as a guide for Americans to protect their families and their property from apocalyptic visions of social breakdown and a tyrannical federal government. They were not paid for out of public funds but were often signed "Congressman Ron Paul."
Mr. Paul has not denied he made money from the publications and at least one signed letter ends with a request for the reader to send a cheque or money order over the phone by calling 1-800-RON-PAUL.
In an interview with CNN's Gloria Borger Wednesday, Mr. Paul said of the newsletter's articles, "I didn't write them. I didn't read them at the time and I disavow them."
When Ms. Borger continued to pursue the subject, Mr. Paul removed his microphone and walked out of the interview.
Drew Ivers, his Iowa campaign chairman, said, "It is ridiculous to imply that Ron Paul is a bigot, racist, or unethical." However, he added Mr. Paul does not deny or retract material he has written under his own signature, such as the letter promoting the newsletters.
When asked whether that meant Mr. Paul believed there was a government conspiracy to cover up the impact of AIDS, Mr. Ivers said, "I don't think he embraces that."
The newsletters first surfaced during Mr. Paul's unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid, but have come under fresh scrutiny as the libertarian has overtaken rivals Mr. Gingrich and Mitt Romney in the polls in the crucial early voting state of Iowa.
#30
Re: Ron Paul
Dec 24th, 2011
Again, I don't know about the newsletter, but seeing he's pro-immigration in principle would suggest one of three possibilities:
1. His personal racism does not affect his political beliefs in any way,
2. He no longer holds those views, or
3. he's telling the truth about those letters.
I don't see how any of these 3 scenarios are likely to affect his judgement as President.
1. His personal racism does not affect his political beliefs in any way,
2. He no longer holds those views, or
3. he's telling the truth about those letters.
I don't see how any of these 3 scenarios are likely to affect his judgement as President.
Similar Threads
8
2
7
3
1